MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400514313 · doi:10.1007/s12205-024-1521-6

Design Optimization of Concrete Gravity Dam Subjected to Near-field Earthquake Based on Novel Lean-bubble Sort Approach

2024· article· en· W4400514313 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Faghfouri, Daniel Germaın, Guillaume Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueKSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity damsortBubbleGeotechnical engineeringField (mathematics)GeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceFinite element methodMechanicsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to limitations in traditional concrete gravity dam (CGD) design, a new approach is necessary. In this study, the lean analysis as a novel approach for CGD design, considering the interaction between dam and reservoir was considered. Maximum and minimum stresses at the heel and displacement of the crest were obtained as crucial input values of bubble sorting based on seismic analysis using Finite element analysis (FEA), and the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). The fuzzy bubble sorting analytic process, aimed at developing a novel method for selecting the best CGD configuration, was developed. Required Criteria, Sub-Criteria and developed models were applied to optimize the body of CGD. The weight of each sub-criterion and models were calculated based on pairwise comparison matrices. The novel approach was designed in MATLAB with the OPT-CGD code to select the best CGD model. The best weight of the Criteria, for selecting the best CGD model, based on the lean construction principles was selected from 60 developed models under implicit dynamic analysis. Statistical analysis reveals a 20% reduction in the concrete mass of the case study's optimal body compared to the traditionally designed dam.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKSCE Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207